Downside to reflection and foregiveness?

[paulpatter]

As long as the demand for all theses CFRs seems important for some, as it should be, can we get any, some, maybe even just one CFR for the policy and it's introduction that took the priesthood blessing away from blacks in the first place???!!!

Anything!!!!!!

Just a bit of reciprocity being asked for here!

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but perhaps I should elaborate. Edward L. Kimball states: "The first known direct statement by a Church President that blacks were denied the priesthood came from Brigham Young in February, 1849, when he said of 'the Africans': 'The curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel. . . .The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.' In 1852, Wilford Woodruff reported that Brigham Young, speaking to the Utah territorial legislature, took personal responsibility for articulating the restriction: 'Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it'" ("Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," BYU Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008, pages 5-78). From that time forward--until 1978--the prohibition was in force as a policy of the Church.

This is the same Brigham Young who said some unprintable (at least here) things about "the Africans" as well as Emma Smith, wife of the Prophet.

BTW, check the posts of he who relentlessly calls for CFRs. Does he practice what he preaches?

[rodheadlee]

The only thing I can point to is this reference:This is where we get the notion of the priesthood being denied to certain races, specifically African American lineage. Why the curse was given we do not know, God has not revealed it. But in 1978 He has through a living prophet lifted the curse. If you can't accept it, I guess that is your problem, but please do not try to say there was never any reason for the ban.

Is this not the curse spoken of? in Genesis 9

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father

[DanGB]

Your calling the prophet of the church and the Quorum of Twelve liars when they said they received a "revelation" has nothing to do with using our intellect.

And her gavel slams! GUILTY AS CHARGED!

Fortunately I like my chances with His higher court of appeals!

[jwhitlock]

So you are calling the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve liars?

Evidently.

[jwhitlock]

Ah, yes, 'tis an onerous task, especially when I provide the name of the author and title of his/her book or article.

So evidently you also think it's just fine and dandy to provide a footnote to an entire book - omitting any page references - and resting your case. Still clueless when it comes to providing quotes, aren't you.

You have created yet another strawman (I assume you understand the meaning of that term). In Post 96 I quote Edward L. Kimball (recall the BYU Studies article) as stating the following: "Hugh B. Brown appears to have been the most [emphasis added because other General Authorities were also concerned about the prohibition] open to change. He urged that the priesthood restriction could be dropped as a matter of Church administrative policy without requiring a specific revelation. He reasoned that if the restriction had not come by revelation, it could be vacated without revelation" (p. 21).

Enter your strawman: Based on that information, I said it was clear that President Brown regarded the ban as wrong and needed to be changed. Consequently, the "direct quote" from President Brown exists only in your imagination. My interpretation is further strengthened by the fact that as an alternative to lifting the ban, Brother Brown "suggested to the First Presidency that perhaps blacks could be given at least the Aaronic Priesthood" (p. 21, footnote 32, which reads: "Bush [Lester], "History of My Research," 2 n. 2, citing McKay, Office Journal, January 9, 1962, and June 7, 1963, copy in possession of the author"). Based on those facts, fair-minded, objective individuals would conclude that President Brown considered the prohibition wrong and sought to change it.

Clear? It's your rather unsubstantiated interpretation, only. In your quote from President Brown, he nowhere says or even infers that the ban was in error or that it was wrong. That's your extrapolation. There is no quote - and hence, the strawman is of your own making.

Fascinating to find this kind of anti-Mormon spin / methodology coming from someone who claims to be a member of the Church. It's pretty intellectually dishonest.

Getting a mite desperate, are you? You come perilously close to making an ad hominem attack by suggesting I lied about my BYU service. As for my supposed lack of understanding of the mechanics of attribution, be advised that I am well versed in MLA, APA, and other style guides. You, however, appear to not be well versed in understanding the difference between a hyphen and dash (junior high school-level English).

And still no quotes that clearly say the ban was an error. None at all. We only have your conjecture - stated as fact, when it isn't - that because some of the brethren wanted the ban reversed, that constitutes some kind of "clear" evidence that the ban was wrong. No wonder you're being called into question with this kind of an approach.

For how long have sentence and paragraph transitions been a problem for you?

How long has misrepresentation been a basic part of your life?

Are you really naive enough to believe that the brethren are wont to criticize official Church policy in public? Discussions of sensitive issues typically occur in private, closed-door meetings. U. of U. Professor Sterling McMurrin, for example, met multiple times with General Authorities, particularly with President McKay.

For a fascinating account of a meeting involving President Joseph Fielding Smith and McMurrin, see pages 191-192 of Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin.

Are you really that unread that you claim that Church policy has never been criticized by Church leaders in public? In any case, what does this have to do with anything? Are you actually trying to claim that because you think someone may have said it was "wrong" in private - and you still don't have any quotes, as usual - that somehow proves your point?

Flimsy.

It's your position, apparently, that the ban wasn't wrong but, nevertheless, President Kimball nearly wore himself out--jeopardized his health--seeking to end it. When he met with the Twelve in the temple and got on his knees and pleaded with the Lord to know if it was right to end the ban, the brethren knew the answer even as he prayed. And the fact is, they were overjoyed with that knowledge. Apostle David Haight said, "I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly and went back to our offices" (p. 57 of E. Kimball's book). Apostle Marvin J. Ashton called it "The most intense spiritual impression I've ever felt" (p. 57). These brethren, together with many other General Authorities, knew the ban was wrong and that it was in the process of being changed.

In the best tradition of Fawn Brodie, you now know the innermost thoughts and real intentions of every member of the First Presidency and the Twelve. Arrogant, aren't we.

Naw, it's not worth the effort.

So instead, you just make unsubstantiated misrepresentations and let it stand at that. SOP.

You mean the sort of thing that you here ably, compliantly demonstrate?

Childish.

As I note above, the quote from President Brown resides in your straw-strewn imagination.

As you note without a shred of evidence - like a clear quote, which I've been calling for. You can fantasize all you want, but you're short on specifics.

Alas, you will find that "quote" in OD--2, signed by the First Presidency. That document's very existence is compelling evidence that the ban was wrong and had to be changed.

Again, only your unsubstantiated opinion, with no quotes to back it up. Not even a quote from the OD - despite the fact that it references something damaging to your case, namely, that the time for the lifting of the ban had been long anticipated. Even back to the days of Brigham Young.

And oh, gosh, thanks for calling me "distinguished."

Tongue in cheek, of course. "Extinguished" would be more accurate.

[jwhitlock]

This is the same Brigham Young who said some unprintable (at least here) things about "the Africans" as well as Emma Smith, wife of the Prophet.

You seem to be a Brigham-hater, in addition to your other questionable qualities. I know some anti-Mormons (most of them, actually) who feel the same way.

It seems like the more "enlightened elite" - as some marginal Church members want to call themselves - are more than happy to throw Brigham to the wolves when it suites their purposes.

[DanGB]

Evidently.

I think it is the likes of folks like you and Deb that elder Oaks was speaking to up on Idaho. Something about exercising freedoms. Seriously, does nothing get through to you guys to act with civility. Glad I'm not in your wards.

[jwhitlock]

I think it is the likes of folks like you and Deb that elder Oaks was speaking to up on Idaho. Something about exercising freedoms. Seriously, does nothing get through to you guys to act with civility. Glad I'm not in your wards.

Disagreeing with you is denying your religious freedoms and not being civil to you?

Get real.

[Deborah]

Seriously, does nothing get through to you guys to act with civility.

I'm not the one who said a prophet of God was lying.

[jwhitlock]

I'm not the one who said a prophet of God was lying.

The reasoning evidently follows thus:

It is civil to say or infer that a prophet of God is lying.

It is not civil to point out that someone has said or inferred a prophet of God is lying.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Sad thing is, I've seen this same double-standard methodology used over and over and over again by anti-Mormons, by some who have left the Church, and by some who remain in the Church, but profess to know better than our Church leaders what really is and should be happening.

This has been, actually, a rather interesting thread. It has provided some insight into the challenges the Church faces from some who remain in the Church, but are moving to becoming "a law unto themselves". Very instructive.

[Deborah]

I continue to find it amazing that some will try to twist words that the prophet himself has said when he stated clearly how the ban was lifted. The history is also clear that other prophets, Pres. McKay among them, had prayed about granting the Priesthood to all worthy males. One is by implication saying that all the prophets from Joseph on were false prophets. We have a whole Biblical history of priesthood or the gospel being allowed only for certain individuals.

It is interesting to see what blacks themselves thought of the ban: The Black Mormon Home Page

Here is a summary:

In brief, the Mormon Faith has NEVER taught that black folks were "inferior" to other races. A few Mormon presidents and apostles have held this as their personal views (as was the view of almost all white Americans in their day), but this was never put forth as "official" Church doctrine (i.e. in official letters of The First Presidency or official statements). There have been Black Mormons since the early days of the Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith was a great advocate for black people; calling for the end of slavery and that blacks be educated and given "equal rights". Mormon scriptures DOES say that the Ancient Egyptians were both "blessed with wisdom" but "cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood". Black Africans are the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians via the Nubians, and thus would INHERIT the curses and blessings of God upon their ancestors. With only a FEW exceptions, the LDS Church did not ordain black men (only men hold the Priesthood) to the Priesthood before 1978. In the year 1978, Mormon Church President Spencer W. Kimball supplicated the LORD and asked Him to remove the Priesthood-ban, and the LORD heard his prayers and this was done. Today, Black men are ordained to the Priesthood just like men of every other race in the Church. All offices and blessings are open to Black Mormons as with any white Member or any other Member of any other race or nationality.

Not all Black Mormons accept the Priesthood-ban as from God. Some believe that it was only the personal opinions of early Church leaders. However, The First Presidency of the Church issued an official statement "On the Negro Question" in 1947 which stated:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel [i.e. the Priesthood]." ( Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17, 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

Here is a timeline from the Black LDS website, which includes interesting quotes on where the ban originated: tiimeline

[jwhitlock]

Here is a timeline from the Black LDS website, which includes interesting quotes on where the ban originated: tiimeline

Thanks for posting this. I took some time to review it again (I had seen it before). I am still impressed with the great significance of the revelation, and the comments of the brethren indicating that the ban was lifted only according to the Lord's timetable. If the ban was in error or it was wrong - as has been claimed without evidence - then I am of the opinion that the Lord would have rectified the situation long before 1978. As it was, the ban evidently had a purpose which we still don't fully understand. The fact that it was only lifted by revelation from the Lord and according to His timetable is evidence that it was most likely acceptable to Him to leave it in place for a time, no matter how it was imposed.

I, for one, look forward at some point to getting the full story on this. Until we have that information, speculation as to intent where no supporting evidence exists is an exercise in futility.

[paulpatter]

So evidently you also think it's just fine and dandy to provide a footnote to an entire book - omitting any page references - and resting your case.

Quibbling time has arrived (your desperation grows). I doubt that I have omitted page references. Even if I have, use of the footnotes would readily lead you to the referenced text (whether they are put at the end of chapters or at the end of entire books). Thanks, however, for raising the subject. You made your first post on this thread on October 24, as Post #9. It doesn't contain even one CFR. Neither do any of your other posts--13, 30, 33, 36, 40, 42, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 91, 92, 93, 95, 105, 107, 110, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, and 137 (October 31). Having demanded, repeatedly, CFRs of me, I should think you would find your failure to practice what you preach, ah, humiliating. Actually, there is design in your CFR demands: You use them as a defensive mechanism. Rather than addressing my points, you employ the "shifting ground" fallacy. I understand.

: Still clueless when it comes to providing quotes, aren't you.

See my preceding statement: To date you have made 25 posts on this thread without using a single CFR, at least some of which would have required the use of quotation marks.

: Clear? It's your rather unsubstantiated interpretation, only. In your quote from President Brown, he nowhere says or even infers that the ban was in error or that it was wrong. That's your extrapolation. There is no quote - and hence, the strawman is of your own making.

I have already explained to you that there is no quote in which President Brown flat-out states that the prohibition was wrong. There are two quotes by him, however, in which he makes it clear that he wants the ban ended (I cited them, with attribution, in an earlier post). Why would he want the ban ended if he didn't feel there was something wrong with it? I'm sure you're capable of putting 2 + 2 together.

: Fascinating to find this kind of anti-Mormon spin / methodology coming from someone who claims to be a member of the Church. It's pretty intellectually dishonest.

No spin is involved; just well-documented facts. It's unfortunate that your preconceived fancies/fantasies cannot accommodate them. As for my being "intellectually dishonest," you would do well to learn what constitutes an ad hominem attack--and the forum rules prohibiting that tactic.

: And still no quotes that clearly say the ban was an error. None at all. We only have your conjecture - stated as fact, when it isn't - that because some of the brethren wanted the ban reversed, that constitutes some kind of "clear" evidence that the ban was wrong. No wonder you're being called into question with this kind of an approach.

Yeah, sure. The Brethren were euphoric when it became clear the ban would be ended. I quoted two of them in a previous post. Here are two more: "I thank God I lived long enough to see this day" (Elder Hanks); and "And as we knelt down to pray [in the temple], the spirit told me what it was going to be. . .and after that prayer. . .I began to weep" (Elder Maxwell) ("Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood," Edward L. Kimball, BYU Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008, pages 65 and 63). E. Kimball quotes Elder Perry thus: "It was just as though a great burden had been lifted. . . . There was a great feeling of unity among us and relief that it was over. As I have talked with other members of the Twelve since then, they felt the same as I did. I don't think the Twelve will ever be the same again" (page 58). These reactions alone (and I can cite more) are clear evidence that the brethren knew a long-standing wrong had been made right.

: How long has misrepresentation been a basic part of your life?

I can state forthrightly that I've never met Mis Representation.

: Are you really that unread that you claim that Church policy has never been criticized by Church leaders in public?

CFR! CFR! CFR!

: In any case, what does this have to do with anything? Are you actually trying to claim that because you think someone may have said it was "wrong" in private - and you still don't have any quotes, as usual - that somehow proves your point?

Went right over your head, did it? My point is that there is a dearth of quotes about the ban because Church leaders do not criticize Church policy in public settings. I cited (earlier post) one exception of which I am aware involving President Joseph Fielding Smith and Sterling M. McMurrin. It relates directly to the ban.

: In the best tradition of Fawn Brodie, you now know the innermost thoughts and real intentions of every member of the First Presidency and the Twelve. Arrogant, aren't we.

Inasmuch as you don't make your last sentence an interrogative, I assume I'm not obligated to answer. That aside, be sure to study Elder Perry's statement above in which he refers to "a great feeling of unity."

: As you note without a shred of evidence - like a clear quote, which I've been calling for. You can fantasize all you want, but you're short on specifics.

I have provided evidence sufficient to convince any reasonable, objective individual that the Brethren wanted the ban ended. Where are your quotes indicating, specifically, that the Brethren didn't want the ban ended?

: Again, only your unsubstantiated opinion, with no quotes to back it up. Not even a quote from the OD - despite the fact that it references something damaging to your case, namely, that the time for the lifting of the ban had been long anticipated. Even back to the days of Brigham Young.

You know, I presume, that Brigham Young made the ban official by something very close to administrative fiat. OD--2 (I have cited this before) includes the words ". . .witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld. . . ." OD-2 corrected that mordant shortcoming.

: Tongue in cheek, of course. "Extinguished" would be more accurate.

It's a shame you didn't think of that in the first place.

[Deborah]

I have provided evidence sufficient to convince any reasonable, objective individual that the Brethren wanted the ban ended. Where are your quotes indicating, specifically, that the Brethren didn't want the ban ended?

I'm not sure where you are getting that the Brethern didn't want the ban ended. No one has said they didn't and in fact it has been argued that they have been praying for it's end for many years. A fact which should offer some evidence that it wasn't an arbitrary decision but one that needed revelation.

[jwhitlock]

Quibbling time has arrived (your desperation grows). I doubt that I have omitted page references. Even if I have, use of the footnotes would readily lead you to the referenced text (whether they are put at the end of chapters or at the end of entire books). Thanks, however, for raising the subject. You made your first post on this thread on October 24, as Post #9. It doesn't contain even one CFR. Neither do any of your other posts--13, 30, 33, 36, 40, 42, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 91, 92, 93, 95, 105, 107, 110, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, and 137 (October 31). Having demanded, repeatedly, CFRs of me, I should think you would find your failure to practice what you preach, ah, humiliating. Actually, there is design in your CFR demands: You use them as a defensive mechanism. Rather than addressing my points, you employ the "shifting ground" fallacy. I understand.

See my preceding statement: To date you have made 25 posts on this thread without using a single CFR, at least some of which would have required the use of quotation marks.

Do you have any clue at all about what CFR means? Your confused post is incoherent.

By the way, you're the one making claims about the ban being in error - not me. That's why we're asking you for specific quotes telling us it's in error. You're providing none. So, CFR again.

I have already explained to you that there is no quote in which President Brown flat-out states that the prohibition was wrong. There are two quotes by him, however, in which he makes it clear that he wants the ban ended (I cited them, with attribution, in an earlier post). Why would he want the ban ended if he didn't feel there was something wrong with it? I'm sure you're capable of putting 2 + 2 together.

So finally you're admitting there is no evidence for your claims. Now you're making the claim that the only reason he could have wanted the ban ended was because it was wrong. You must have a very limited imagination if you can't clearly see any other reasons why he might have wanted the ban ended - such as he simply wanted to see the priesthood extended to all worthy men, for instance. But of course, there can be no alternative explanations, because you know what they were really thinking.

Funny thing is, you can't provide any quotes to support your claim.

No spin is involved; just well-documented facts. It's unfortunate that your preconceived fancies/fantasies cannot accommodate them. As for my being "intellectually dishonest," you would do well to learn what constitutes an ad hominem attack--and the forum rules prohibiting that tactic.

You haven't provided any "well-documented facts". Giving us a quote, and then telling us what it means - when it says nothing of the sort - is "spin", plain and simple.

It's intellectually dishonest. It's been pointed out to you how you're being intellectually dishonest. If that offends you, then report me.

Yeah, sure. The Brethren were euphoric when it became clear the ban would be ended. I quoted two of them in a previous post. Here are two more: "I thank God I lived long enough to see this day" (Elder Hanks); and "And as we knelt down to pray [in the temple], the spirit told me what it was going to be. . .and after that prayer. . .I began to weep" (Elder Maxwell) ("Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood," Edward L. Kimball, BYU Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008, pages 65 and 63). E. Kimball quotes Elder Perry thus: "It was just as though a great burden had been lifted. . . . There was a great feeling of unity among us and relief that it was over. As I have talked with other members of the Twelve since then, they felt the same as I did. I don't think the Twelve will ever be the same again" (page 58). These reactions alone (and I can cite more) are clear evidence that the brethren knew a long-standing wrong had been made right.

And again, there's no "clear" evidence for your conjecture that they thought it was an error and was wrong. No quotes from anyone saying it was wrong. Just your spin on what they said, telling us that there can be no other possible conclusion at all than that they thought it was wrong.

Any quotes to back up your claim? Nope. instead of reading minds, perhaps you ought to take off the blinders and understand that feelings of relief and a lifting of burdens come after any trial of our faith, even when those trials are given to us by the Lord. And those trials don't need to be "errors" or "wrong". Do you have the ability to understand such concepts outside of your preconceived biases?

I can state forthrightly that I've never met Mis Representation.

Look in the mirror.

CFR! CFR! CFR

!

It's what you said: "Are you really naive enough to believe that the brethren are wont to criticize official Church policy in public?"

By the way, CFR on authoritative quotes from leaders of the Church saying the ban was in error.

Went right over your head, did it? My point is that there is a dearth of quotes about the ban because Church leaders do not criticize Church policy in public settings. I cited (earlier post) one exception of which I am aware involving President Joseph Fielding Smith and Sterling M. McMurrin. It relates directly to the ban.

So after calling for a CFR about you saying Church leaders don't ever criticize official Church policy in public, you then repeat it again? Counseling can help these kinds of things.

Inasmuch as you don't make your last sentence an interrogative, I assume I'm not obligated to answer. That aside, be sure to study Elder Perry's statement above in which he refers to "a great feeling of unity."

Which you then tell us amounts to a confession that the ban was wrong. And you do so without any clear statements to that effect.

I have provided evidence sufficient to convince any reasonable, objective individual that the Brethren wanted the ban ended. Where are your quotes indicating, specifically, that the Brethren didn't want the ban ended?

Shifting the goalposts, are you? You've been claiming that they felt the ban was an error, that it was wrong. Now you're trying to make the false claim that I think they didn't want it ended.

Can you try to stay on track and not misdirect the conversation? Such tactics are also intellectually dishonest.

You know, I presume, that Brigham Young made the ban official by something very close to administrative fiat. OD--2 (I have cited this before) includes the words ". . .witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld. . . ." OD-2 corrected that mordant shortcoming.

Assumptions without quotes or evidence. But that's what you're good at, doing that kind of thing.

As long as you want to continue to foist your unsubstantiated opinions on us as fact, I'll keep pointing that out.

[paulpatter]

I'm not sure where you are getting that the Brethern didn't want the ban ended.

I understand your point. I made the statement in the context of--and in response to-- JW's claim that there are no quotations by Apostle Brown indicating that he wanted the ban ended. I cited two quotations, with attribution, in which his feelings are clearly manifest.

: No one has said they didn't and in fact it has been argued that they have been praying for it's end for many years. A fact which should offer some evidence that it wasn't an arbitrary decision but one that needed revelation.

I agree completely.

[DanGB]

Here is a timeline from the Black LDS website, which includes interesting quotes on where the ban originated: tiimeline

I could not find the specific quotes introducing the ban. Could you refer us to these quotes as youay be better read in this article. And could you do it without calling me a liar for once?

And calling you on this nasty accusation you seem to have for me, could you please cut and paste my exact quote where I called any church leader a liar. You are extremely disrespectful in this habit of yours.

[Deborah]

And calling you on this nasty accusation you seem to have for me, could you please cut and paste my exact quote where I called any church leader a liar.

You said regarding Pres Kimball "I cannot accept OD2 as revelation as I believe God never wanted to withhold His blessings from blacks to begin with." Pres. Kimball said specifically that he received a revelation regarding the ban. So either he did or he didn't and he either lied or he told the truth. Since you don't believe OD2 came as a result of a revelation how else could one interpret it.

[jwhitlock]

I understand your point. I made the statement in the context of--and in response to-- JW's claim that there are no quotations by Apostle Brown indicating that he wanted the ban ended. I cited two quotations, with attribution, in which his feelings are clearly manifest.

What kind of dishonesty is this? I asked for quotes from President Brown that the ban was in error or wrong, and you suddenly change it to just "wanted the ban ended"? And then you tell us that I said there were no quotes that he wanted the ban ended?

Let's be clear so that you can understand. I never said that President Brown didn't want the ban ended. I asked for quotes from you where he said it was "wrong" or an "error". Do not attribute things to me that I didn't say.

Are you reading for any kind of comprehension, or are you simply out to twist things?

I agree completely.

Then try to phrase the discussion honestly from here on out.

[DanGB]

You said regarding Pres Woodruff "I cannot accept OD2 as revelation as I believe God never wanted to withhold His blessings from blacks to begin with." Pres. Woodruff said specifically that he received a revelation regarding the ban. So either he did or he didn't and he either lied or he told the truth. Since you don't believe OD2 came as a result of a revelation how else could one interpret it.

?????????

President Woodruff and the ban? Gotta know your Church history a little better! But I don't think you are lying!

[Deborah]

?????????

President Woodruff and the ban? Gotta know your Church history a little better! But I don't think you are lying!

You're right Pres. Kimball!

[jwhitlock]

And calling you on this nasty accusation you seem to have for me, could you please cut and paste my exact quote where I called any church leader a liar. You are extremely disrespectful in this habit of yours.

You said in post #119:

As I have said before, that is why, regardless of what said by President Kimball (who was a great man), I cannot accept OD2 as revelation as I believe God never wanted to withhold His blessings from blacks to begin with.

Each member of the First Presidency and the Twelve said that OD2 was a revelation. They're very clear on that.

So, here we have you saying you cannot accept it as revelation (regardless of what President Kimball said!), and we have on the other hand the First Presidency and the Twelve making clear and unequivocal statements that it was revelation.

Hence, you don't believe what the First Presidency and the Twelve told us. If you don't believe them, that must mean that you think they're lying.

Or do you have some other explanation / retraction that you'd like to offer?

[DanGB]

You said regarding Pres Kimball "I cannot accept OD2 as revelation as I believe God never wanted to withhold His blessings from blacks to begin with." Pres. Kimball said specifically that he received a revelation regarding the ban. So either he did or he didn't and he either lied or he told the truth. Since you don't believe OD2 came as a result of a revelation how else could one interpret it.

But where did I say church leaders were, as you have specifically accused me of, with total disrespect for truth and facts, "are liars"??

[paulpatter]

Do you have any clue at all about what CFR means? Your confused post is incoherent.

Oh, I see. You have no answer to the fact that you have made 25 posts on this thread without using a single CFR (you have made a few inadequate allusions to sources). So unable to posit a credible response to your "25 post" problem, you resort to the transparently bogus claim that my post is "incoherent." Too, too funny.

: By the way, you're the one making claims about the ban being in error - not me. That's why we're asking you for specific quotes telling us it's in error. You're providing none. So, CFR again.

Not quite right. You have focused on the notion that Apostle Brown never said anything to suggest that he wanted the ban lifted. That is wrong, and I have posted two quotations--with credible attribution--to prove it.

: So finally you're admitting there is no evidence for your claims.

In your dreams.

: Now you're making the claim that the only reason he could have wanted the ban ended was because it was wrong.

Blatantly false, and I think you know it.

: You must have a very limited imagination if you can't clearly see any other reasons why he might have wanted the ban ended - such as he simply wanted to see the priesthood extended to all worthy men, for instance.

Of course, there were multiple reasons; however, your clause that begins "such as" introduces the reason why many individuals--not just Apostle Brown--wanted the ban to end. That is made clear in OD--2. Here, you make the error of treating it (extending the priesthood to all worthy men) as a subordinate reason.

: Funny thing is, you can't provide any quotes to support your claim.

Yes, and those I have abundantly supplied, I have fabricated, including their sources.

: You haven't provided any "well-documented facts". Giving us a quote, and then telling us what it means - when it says nothing of the sort - is "spin", plain and simple.

Are you aware that many school districts offer remedial reading courses? Check 'em out.

: It's intellectually dishonest. It's been pointed out to you how you're being intellectually dishonest. If that offends you, then report me.

Your allegation of intellectual dishonesty on my part is yet another defensive maneuver on your part. The strategy is to attack the messenger, rather than to address the message. It isn't any more complicated than that. Yup--25 posts and not a single CFR.

: And again, there's no "clear" evidence for your conjecture that they thought it was an error and was wrong. No quotes from anyone saying it was wrong. Just your spin on what they said, telling us that there can be no other possible conclusion at all than that they thought it was wrong.

How does that old adage go? "You can lead a horse to water, but you. . . ."

: Any quotes to back up your claim? Nope. instead of reading minds, perhaps you ought to take off the blinders and understand that feelings of relief and a lifting of burdens come after any trial of our faith, even when those trials are given to us by the Lord. And those trials don't need to be "errors" or "wrong". Do you have the ability to understand such concepts outside of your preconceived biases?

Well, gee, why don't you try asking the questions again once you get your syntax straightened out?

: It's what you said: "Are you really naive enough to believe that the brethren are wont to criticize official Church policy in public?"

I asked that in response to your assertion that the Brethren do or have criticized Church policy in public settings. No they don't and no they haven't (with the one exception I noted involving Sterling McMurrin and President Joseph Fielding Smith; and possibly a few others). I asked you for a CFR--an example, if you will--of an instance in which one of the Brethren has publicly criticized a Church policy or position. You have provided none. BTW, it's my understanding that any member who does such a thing is a candidate for a Church court.

If the ban wasn't a mistake in 1978 and for multiple years leading up to that year, why did it culminate in the issuance of OD--2? It's instructive to study the various rationales for instituting the ban, each of which is readily assailable. I respect Church leaders/members who simply admit, "We just don't know. . .only God knows."

: So after calling for a CFR about you saying Church leaders don't ever criticize official Church policy in public, you then repeat it again?

Repeat what (again)?

: Counseling can help these kinds of things.

What kinds of things?

: Which you then tell us amounts to a confession that the ban was wrong. And you do so without any clear statements to that effect.

I'm developing a severe pain that starts at the back of my neck and runs up the side. . . .

: Shifting the goalposts, are you? You've been claiming that they felt the ban was an error, that it was wrong. Now you're trying to make the false claim that I think they didn't want it ended.

Arrgh. . .now the pain is in my eyes accompanied by a ringing in my ears. Ooooo, really hurts.

[paulpatter]

What kind of dishonesty is this? I asked for quotes from President Brown that the ban was in error or wrong, and you suddenly change it to just "wanted the ban ended"?

So (heh, heh), President Brown "wanted the ban ended" because there was nothing wrong with it. Is that your position? Hilarious.

: And then you tell us that I said there were no quotes that he wanted the ban ended? . . .

Let's be clear so that you can understand. I never said that President Brown didn't want the ban ended.

OK, fine.

: I asked for quotes from you where he said it was "wrong" or an "error". Do not attribute things to me that I didn't say.

As I explain above, if President Brown wanted the ban to end (as he did), it is obvious that he thought its continuance was wrong. It amounts to the same thing. But, inasmuch as you are so aggrieved (to the point of accusing me--again--of dishonesty). . .I'm sorry.

There, feel better?